Nessa Swinn Yap: Greetings, and thank you for joining us for this very special episode of the Foreseeable Podcast Series. My name is Nessa, Research Associate at the Social Inclusion Project, and host of today's conversation on the Singapore Budget 2025.
This Budget is a particularly special one for a few key reasons. On top of being an SG60 Budget, the year that Singapore turns 60, it's also arriving ahead of the General Elections. It's the first Budget under the new PM Lawrence Wong, and likely the last before a new term of government.
At the time of recording, the Budget was released just two days ago, so more Ministry announcements are expected to follow. But, for now, much has already been reported by the media on the largesse of handouts, for example, and how the Budget holds up as an election year Budget.
In contrast, the conversation we will have today takes a social inclusion lens, which means we will focus on whether the Budget is a fair one, whether it
creates opportunities for all and whether it overlooks some. In addition, more than just a plan for our dollars and cents, the Budget is also a roadmap to outline the government's priorities and scope of intervention to deal with the challenges that Singapore faces.
Joining me today is Dr Ng Kok Hoe, Senior Research Fellow, and Head of the Social Inclusion Project; Dr Stephanie Chok, Executive Director of the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics or HOME for short; and Lim Jingzhou, Community Worker and Lead of the Cassia Resettlement Team.
Let's dive straight into things. PM Wong has declared this to be a Budget for all Singaporeans. I want to get your quick takes from each of you on how well the Budget has done in terms of inclusion. Are there groups that benefit more than others? So, I figured that Stephanie, you might have the strongest views on this, so why don't you go first?
Dr Stephanie Chok: Okay. I work for a migrant worker organisation. So, the title "For all Singaporeans" is discomforting, but also generally consistent with the State's approach in which migrant workers' economic and social wellbeing generally does not feature prominently in terms of their long-term planning.
In terms of benefitting most or least, for me I think what's more interesting is how some groups benefit. And this can be analysed in terms of measures, but also omissions, right?
So, in terms of policy tools and interventions, they have chosen, for example, not to impose price controls. They've chosen not to impose rent controls. They've chosen not to control the prices of public services like transport, utilities, electricity. The
inflation and cost of living — these issues affect the entire population.
We have a 30% non-resident population out of a population of 6 million, right? The effect of cost of living inflation affects the entire population, but the relief is targeted, it's discretionary, and it also comes in the form of transfers, credit, vouchers, all of which are only accessible to Singaporeans.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thank you. Maybe we can move on to Kok Hoe.
Dr Ng Kok Hoe: Yeah. If we look at the targeting of the Budget measures this time around, they're fairly wide ranging, to cover the major social groups, so families with young children, working-age adults, employers, elderly people, people with disabilities, poorer households. And there are these very helpful infographics on the government Budget website, which shows you exactly how these various groups will benefit. So that was probably how they thought about it as well.
But if we were to think about its impact, the impact of the Budget in terms of social inclusion, I would say it's hard to say and the main reason is that many of the measures, certainly the headline catching measures are one-off. It's very hard to tell if one-off measures can have any significant impact at all in terms of improving opportunities for life, and creating fairness in society.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thank you. Jingzhou?
Lim Jingzhou: Well, certainly I think that, the Budget aptly named a Budget for all Singaporeans can be clearly seen as having something for every Singaporean. The sort of question when we look at it from an angle of inclusivity, I think is how do the cost of living pressures affect Singaporeans from different socio-economic backgrounds.
For example, from my experience as a community worker, I gather reflections and insights, not necessarily quantitative data points that policymakers might have. But you know, based on the stories I hear from the people I talk to, there is a sense that the cost of living pressures affect those that are the poorest most disproportionately.
Let me give an example. When you compare low income households in poverty as compared to a middle or even upper income household, what is possible to adjust in terms of discretionary spending would be quite different across the various types of households.
So, in an
environment of higher cost of living, some have an option to cut down on certain spending, but frankly others are already living on subsistence sort of expenditure already, just barely covering basic necessities. And in that way, I hear and see how cost of living pressures affect the poorest in our society most disproportionately.
To me thinking about the Budget is then really how much of that addresses that difference that these issues actually affect us. Right? And I think one thing that I've been thinking about with no immediate answer is this interesting notion that a lot of the transfers to Singaporeans in the form of the CDC vouchers and the SG60 vouchers are not means-tested. A lot of the other subsidies could be.
But these broad-range, sort of, cash, although they're given in voucher measures, are actually to all Singaporeans or Singapore households. They're not means-tested. I think the seniors get more for the SG60 vouchers, but it does raise questions on, does it effectively tackle that disproportionate impact?
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thanks everyone. So, what I'm hearing is that inclusion is not something that can be very easily and neatly captured in a slogan. So, I think we'll have to explore more of that as we move along.
But for now, I want to field this question for Kok Hoe. How does the Budget fare in terms of generosity? With the slew of handouts delivered, can we say that this is a Budget that surpasses others in terms of generosity? And in that sense, do we still need financial assistance, like ComCare schemes?
Dr Ng Kok Hoe: I think if we look at amounts, for example, right? This will appear of course to be a very generous Budget, but I would suggest it's important to think about the Budget, and social policies beyond just the amount of money that's been given away.
Other than giving money, governments actually have a lot more levers and tools to work with, right? So, governments deliver public services. Like health, healthcare and housing. Governments set standards, for example, in wages. Governments set regulations, for example, for platform workers and their CPF contributions in recent years.
Some of these things may be a lot more important functions of government when it comes to social policy than the giving of money. So, we shouldn't kind of fixate on the generosity of money being given away.
The other thing about money being given away is of course, that a lot of these schemes, as I mentioned earlier, are one-off, right? They appear this year, they're not going to be in next year's Budget or they may be, right? And that's the point. You don't know whether they'll be in next year's Budget.
We can generally achieve more with permanent programmes than we can with one-off giveaways like this. Just consider this in terms of the expenditure. The SG60 vouchers alone cost a total of $2 billion. Which is about half of the entire operating budget of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, right? And about a third of the budget of the Ministry of Social and Family Development.
I mean, whatever you think of the value of the work they're doing. Imagine what can be achieved if these resources were deployed in a different way, in more thoughtful, sustained, accountable programmes. So, the danger of one-off cash or near cash transfers is that it may raise public expectations without actually improving long-term income security.
So, do we still need other permanent financial support programmes? In general, yes. Although it must be said that despite this huge raft of programmes that have been or initiatives that have been announced this time around. The architecture of the underlying regime of social assistance programmes like ComCare actually have remained more or less untouched. Which means we're not really changing the way we approach financial support. And these one-off schemes will not make a difference to that.
Lim Jingzhou: Yeah, and I just really wanted to jump in from where Kok Hoe left off just now to point out that the fact that a lot of the support measures are one-off in nature actually sort of corresponds with a lot of what I'm hearing from the community members that I work with.
That although this is a generous Budget with generous support, the sort of underlying stress or pressure or concern or worry of how cost of living increases over the past few years will continue and whether the support measures will continue. In other words, there's a very real concern on what's going to happen beyond this year, beyond this Budget and its generous support. I'm still going to have to live with the increased cost of living in the next few years.
And so, I think there is some kind of sentiment that the support measures announced this round do help, but whether it would really be a long-term solution for these problems is on people's minds.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Great. Because that brings me to my next question on whether dedicated schemes, support schemes for lower-income households, such as ComLink+ from last year and updates to the Fresh Start Housing Scheme announced this year, actually do go a long way in that sense to support low-income families in the long term, as you mentioned.
Lim Jingzhou: Correct. So, I think taking a broad view on it, and I think mentioning how we should look at it, maybe not just in this Budget but in this term of government and some of the past few Budget announcements as well. We have seen quite a large number of schemes and enhancements to existing schemes to increase the support for low-income households in the domain of financial and income adequacy.
Taking it as a whole, I generally think of the support for low-income households to be differentiated between those who are employed and those who are not employed.
For those who are employed, what we are seeing is the recent enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement scheme (WIS), in conjunction with the introduction of the ComLink+ scheme or programme. That also includes the ComLink+ progress packages, of which a specific package is on a progress package for employment.
Taken both together, any low-income household who meets the prevailing criteria will stand to benefit from having not just their basic income but an additional WIS top-up from the government and an additional ComLink+ progress package payout from the government.
Looking at the figures, I've estimated it to be minimally about $300-400 a month in terms of a boost for an employed household, and it could go higher to perhaps $500 a month depending on the prevailing conditions of the scheme. So certainly, these are not to be taken lightly. They are significant measures introduced by the government to support low-income households.
For households who are not employed, the government has announced in this Budget the enhancements to the ComCare financial assistance scheme, both to the short-to-medium-term scheme and the long-term assistance scheme. Based on the basic rates of calculations that we have seen, I believe the increments are about 15% minimally. That's quite a significant jump. And the last round of adjustments was actually a few years ago.
So, there are some questions on how these adjustments happen. Is it annual? How can people expect these adjustments to be made in time as cost-of-living pressures continue to persist? But nonetheless, a welcome support in terms of low-income households who are not employed.
So that's sort of in the area of income and financial adequacy. You have asked about the enhancements made to the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, and I'd like to quickly touch on that.
In Singapore, for low-income households, the only pathway possible to increase housing adequacy is through home ownership. That is because of the current policy parameters that do not allow social housing or public rental housing to provide larger housing despite families being of larger household sizes.
So, the policy parameters create an environment where home ownership is the only pathway for low-income households to get larger houses, better houses that can better meet their housing needs. And in that aspect, I would say that indeed then the Fresh Start Housing Scheme does support low-income households to gain access to home ownership.
Whether it is for first-timer households who now will have an option to buy a shorter-lease flat or for second-timer households who will enjoy the enhancement to the Fresh Start Housing Grant, all that being said, it really does help to improve the low-income households’ access to better housing.
But it creates a concern on what that would look like for retirement adequacy given the amount of CPF savings that are often used to finance the flat purchase. This leaves some concern about whether the pursuit of home ownership and an improvement in the housing environment — which is really crucial for day-to-day living, especially for families with young children, whose children would really benefit from having a more conducive living environment or more housing space — is creating a trade-off with retirement adequacy and a problem that would need more support in the future.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thanks so much, Jingzhou. If you don't mind, I would just like to follow up on this because you mentioned that you work with low-income communities.
This is a question for both you and Stephanie, but perhaps you can go first. What are some problems faced by the communities you work with that money alone is not enough to fix?
Given that the Budget is more than just a fiscal plan, it's also an exercise in setting the policy agenda.
Lim Jingzhou: I'd just like to briefly highlight three key areas where we could do more than just financial support or cash transfers.
The first area is in the area of protections. In an environment of higher cost of living, I'm extremely concerned about the easy access to credit and, in particular, the Buy Now Pay Later arrangements, which have also been featured in the media quite extensively.
We understand that for low-income households who are facing that pressure, it is easy to turn to these Buy Now Pay Later arrangements, but often the protections for consumers — especially cash-strapped consumers who may not have the requisite financial literacy to appreciate the kind of hire purchase, advance credit, or debt arrangements they're actually entering into — would create a very dangerous downward spiral and vicious cycle.
So, I think there's lots to do in the area of protections for consumers in that regard.
The second aspect is in terms of rights. A lot of the policies actually enhance the rights of different groups in society that may need more support. Take, for instance, the Progressive Wage Model, which the government touts as the equivalent of our own style of doing minimum wage. That's certainly a trademark policy for Singapore.
But it needs to be accompanied with rights education on the ground for low-wage workers to understand what their entitlements are and for companies to be held responsible or aligned with the Progressive Wage Model.
The last area in terms of policy is that a lot of these Budget announcements lead to more resources being channelled into new programmes or enhancements to existing ones. But a lot of the work ahead is in the operationalisation and implementation of it.
Some of the Budget announcements actually talk about how implementation will only start one year later. We have seen that also for previous Budget announcements. So, I think it's just a matter of saying that these are good things that we are hearing. But how is it going to work out on the ground?
In reality, it needs to kick in more quickly for its desired impact to address the immediate issues.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thanks, Jingzhou. Stephanie, would you like to chime in on this with regards to migrant workers?
Dr Stephanie Chok: So, I think a lot of the problems migrant workers face stems also from a lack of labour protections. And I think this is a result of a kind of migrant worker regime, right, that's created and designed to ensure that we have a permanently disposable workforce that's highly dependent on employers and agents. So, you know, things like excessive working hours, lack of rest days, low wages, chronic wage stagnation, persistent wage theft, hazardous work conditions. These are all things that will require sort of concerted policy efforts and recognition of the need to protect migrant workers' rights.
I would say though, there are some things money can help with because there's no room in the Budget right now, right? So, one area would be healthcare. Migrant workers grapple with inadequate access to affordable quality healthcare. There used to be subsidies for migrant workers up to 2007, but that was withdrawn, right. I think it's unrealistic to assume that we are going to have 1.1 million, actually more than that if you include S Pass and Employment Pass holders, with 1.1 million work permit holders, are we going to assume that they're not going to fall ill, they're not going to contract critical illnesses, get into accidents? You know, the fact that they are not subsidised means that there's hefty bills for employers and migrant workers. So, I think that one way, one thing that we should do is to consider reintroducing healthcare subsidies for foreign workers.
And in terms of the, what money can't buy, I think what I'll really like to see from decision makers is an ideological paradigm shift in how they see the migrant worker “problem”. So, to speak, right? The general priority in labour migration seems to be control and management, right? How do we monitor and regulate the entry and exit into the country? How do we manage them as potential risk whether it's a security risk or public health risk? How do we minimise our requirements to care for them, yet maintain this temporary, highly disposable stable, but low paid workforce? Right? But migrant workers' needs, rights and wellbeing is constantly treated as an externality. It's never fully costed in whenever we think about or do any policy planning.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thanks very much Stephanie. I think you mentioned the very invaluable care work that migrant workers provide, which brings me to my question on the government's efforts to kind of reverse the trend of declining birth rates. We see that in, you know, ever more year on year support, as going towards childcare, especially in this year. There was the announcement of the new Large Families Scheme.
So, I wanted to ask, perhaps both Stephanie and Kok Hoe, why do you think these attempts to reverse the trend of declining birth rates has not worked in the larger context of our current care crisis?
Dr Ng Kok Hoe: I think it's fair to say that there are few policy areas where our lack of success is so obvious and persistent, which is the difficulty of reversing very, very low fertility rates that if I recall correctly, reached an historic low last year.
The evidence internationally is quite clear, which is that, societies have more comprehensive support for families in terms of care services, and of course care leave for the parents, not so much cash, but it's those other forms of support services and leave, they do better in terms of fertility. So, countries in Northern Europe are great examples. And on the other hand, countries that hold onto more traditional notions of family or gender responsibilities and therefore move slower on family support they tend to do worse in terms of fertility. And we see that in the countries of Southern Europe.
So, I mean, the path forward is quite clear to Singapore. It's a matter of committing ourselves to, to make those decisions, adequate support for families, services, leave and a reorientation of the way we organise work and society at large around care as the central axis.
Dr Stephanie Chok: I don't have much more to add to what Kok Hoe said, just that in general, I agree that the care infrastructure is inadequate. You know, there are a lot of care gaps and I think the prevailing policy sort of objective seems to be just ensuring that we have migrant domestic workers to take over, right, and fill those care gaps. But it's not adequate.
You know, I think the way the care infrastructure has been set up is almost as if the only economically feasible option for most parents is to depend on and hire a domestic worker for care needs. But I don't think that's what all parents want to do. So, I think there needs to be more thought into universal, ensuring that there's universal affordable childcare outside of saying that oh, we just hire a domestic worker to care for your children.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thank you both. I think we cannot talk about care without talking about a growing elderly population and the elder care system.
So Jingzhou, in your work with senior populations, do you think there's anything else we could do for the caregivers of seniors or for seniors who are living alone, which is a growing segment of society?
Lim Jingzhou: Yeah, I think the announcement of enhancing the Home Caregiving Grant this round in the Budget is certainly also very welcome. Recently I've encountered a family who had to make the difficult choice between sending their elderly parent who was living alone to the nursing home or to continue hiring a helper to support the care of the elderly parent. So, you know what the enhancement of the Home Caregiving Grant does, is to provide that financial support there.
But really, I think the other aspect that could be enhanced on is shifting the ideological approach from saying that family needs to be the bedrock of care and support to a more shared approach between community or society with family members. Especially when a lot of the family members being relied on are sandwiched between taking care of both their own children and their elderly parents.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thank you. So, a big part of the Budget this year and even in previous Budgets is the focus on work and skills. One thing that strikes me and perhaps, all of you as well is that a lot of the support for workers is indirect in that they go to employers as wage offsets, training grants and so on.
How is this different from more direct forms of support to the individual workers themselves? And what do you think are some of the merits and drawbacks to indirect support? Kok Hoe, would you like to comment on that?
Dr Ng Kok Hoe: Some forms of support I think we will have to channel through employers. For example, employers do hiring. So, if we want to encourage them to hire certain groups of workers, then the incentives must be targeted at employers. We need employers to redesign jobs, to innovate the workplace. So, measures to encourage that again must be channelled through employers and for workers who are currently working. If we want to encourage employers to allow their workers to go for training and to support their workers' training, then some incentives will also help.
But it's always about the weighting of those two streams of support, right? We'll always need some support to go directly to workers, not least because people often most need support when they are not in work and are looking for work, right? So, if all forms of all the resources are tethered to an employment status, then this group that are out of work looking for work will be very vulnerable.
And that also means we must therefore pay attention to worker-targeted measures like the Progressive Wage Model, the Workfare Income Supplement and so on, that currently go to workers, and especially the fairly recently announced Jobseeker Support Scheme. We need to keep our eye on how well those schemes are working.
Dr Stephanie Chok: So, I just wanted to point out that actually the Progressive Wage Model excludes foreigners. So even in terms of ensuring that wage levels rise, you then create or entrench, you know, pay inequality within sectors.
Nessa Swinn Yap: So, while there still remains exclusion of a foreign workforce, I think at least there have been some attempts to include lower-income workers in the push towards training and skills upgrading.
So Jingzhou, how do you think, what are some of the challenges that you think lower-income workers will face despite these kinds of support measures? And how do their needs differ from higher-income professionals?
Lim Jingzhou: I feel that we could place more emphasis on ensuring that whichever training or skills upgrading is a fit in the kind of career that low-wage workers are looking at, right? You asked me about how there's differentiation from higher-income professionals and I think the sad reality is that when you are a low-wage worker, there is no mention of career and professional development as compared to a higher-income professional. And I think that doesn't need to be the case.
I think what the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us is that essential workers are very much required. We value their work as a society, and their work also requires craft, skills and experience. So, there is no reason why we should think of them differently from higher-income professionals.
And with that in mind, it means that there are some low-wage workers that could be a better fit to a different kind of low-wage work. Ensuring that there is a fit there, and then investing in the training and upskilling there, I think will achieve the largest impact. And on the other hand, with the Progressive Wage Model, which we've all discussed a little in this conversation, what needs to be demonstrated credibly, explicitly and clearly is that the efforts and investments in training and upskilling will translate to those income gains.
I think low-wage workers need that assurance because it is a large opportunity cost for them to invest their time, their energies, their financial resources in training and skills upgrading. The Progressive Wage Model conceptually provides for that ladder of wage growth as skill enhancements are introduced. Or essentially as the workforce or the low-wage worker becomes more productive through skills upgrading and training. But what a lot of low-wage workers struggle with is, will I have that promotion? Will I have that job if I go for that training? And that's really uncertain at this point.
Nessa Swinn Yap: So, we're at least definitely investing a lot of resources into building a skilled local care workforce. Are there ways, Stephanie, that we can tap on our existing migrant worker population to complement these efforts?
Dr Stephanie Chok: So, HOME runs an academy that offers nursing aid and healthcare classes. And these are very popular because a lot of domestic workers actually want to carve out alternative livelihood pathways. And if there was greater job mobility after they access training opportunities to move into other forms of care work, it will actually be mutually beneficial because we do have a shortage of care workers.
I think this training should also be offered to domestic workers, even if they wish to stay within the household, because I think in general care work is undervalued. The training is required whether or not they wish to move into the formal, institutionalised care workforce, or even if they wish to stay within the household. We just need to value care work better.
Nessa Swinn Yap: All right everyone. I think that's almost time. You've given the listeners and possibly policymakers a lot to think about. Let's leave them with perhaps a wish.
What is one thing that each of you would most like to see in next year's Budget? Perhaps we can go with Jingzhou first.
Lim Jingzhou: Sure. I think the Budget of this government and the previous Budgets by the same term of government has shown that its intent is to create a thriving society in Singapore. I think what has been missing in the conversation so far is about health and particularly mental health of the society, which I believe is crucial for a thriving society that we all hope to build and have.
I also think that mental health is an indicator of how well society is doing, so I would like to see the Budget in addressing all the support and policy measures think about how the mental health of all Singaporeans can be better cared for and supported.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Thanks Jingzhou. Stephanie?
Dr Stephanie Chok: Yeah. So, since there's nothing in the Budget for migrant workers can I have two wishes?
Nessa Swinn Yap: Sure.
Dr Stephanie Chok: So, number one for sure. Bring back healthcare subsidies for migrant workers, at the very least, at least work permit holders who are the lowest paid.
Number two, abolish the foreign worker levy. The state collects billions every year in foreign worker levies. The money goes directly into state coffers. It's not earmarked specifically to benefit migrant workers in any way. In fact, the levies from just the domestic worker population alone, which is 290,000, is $2 billion. Which made me think just now when you were talking, did that $2 billion go and fund the SG60 vouchers, right? So, in total, right. For construction workers, the levy ranges from $250 to $900 per worker, right? So, the billions of dollars are collected by the state. None of it goes back to migrant workers.
If the policy rationale for having the foreign worker levy is that there needs to be some pay parity between what employees are paying foreigners and locals, give them CPF. At least the money goes back to the person who is actually doing the work instead of just being directed to state revenue for which is not earmarked for migrant worker welfare.
Nessa Swinn Yap: So, I hope cameras got all of that wonderful policy proposals. Kok Hoe?
Dr Ng Kok Hoe: I hope to see in next year's Budget a new carer's leave, right? It's something we have written about recently.
When you reach a certain age in Singapore, you begin to hear among your friends that people have to make adjustments to their work lives and so on, because they need to take care of their elderly parents. This is going to be increasingly so. And it's not a problem that will go away just by us ignoring it.
One easy way to do that is to make the current childcare leave a more general carer's leave that people can take if they need to provide care for anyone who needs care within the family or even neighbours. That I think will be an important move to signal that we take care seriously. And that we take care amongst Singaporeans, and care issues in our society seriously.
Nessa Swinn Yap: Great. Thank you so much everyone. And thank you to you, the listener as well. If you enjoyed this episode, there are more episodes in the Foreseeable Podcast Series that you can tune in to. Or you can find us on Spotify or wherever you find your podcast.
See you and thank you so much.